A Reflection of Bad Company 2

Currently Call of Duty Black Ops is the reigning king of first person shooters. That’s not to say that there are no good first person shooters out there, there are many good ones and even better ones but, there are only a few that are still popular and have a dedicated community to compete with Call of Duty. I would say that Killzone 3, Counter Strike, Halo Reach, the newly released Gears of War 3 and of course Bad Company 2 are the most popular and played shooters compared to Call of Duty. For me Bad Company 2 is my go to shooter probably until Battlefield 3 is released. I had picked it up at the end of the this summer and have not been able to put it down.

I think people forget that the Battlefield series is probably the only modern shooter that is truly competes against the Call of Duty series. Bad Company 2 is the best, in my opinion better, alternative to Call of Duty: Black Ops. I am not an expert on shooters or even Call of Duty. I only own Call of Duty: Finest Hour, of the modern installments I only really played Modern Warfare and have very little experience with the rest. Even with my limited amount of experience, I have learned that Call of Duty is more or less the same game every year with some minor improvements and doesn’t provide the realism I have become accustomed to in Bad Company 2.


Bad Company 2 provides a sense of realism that I have come to take for granted. I instantly notice this lack of realism when I jump into another shooter that doesn’t have destructible environments. Having the convenience and realism of being able to blow up a wall when you are cornered to escape the enemy is so satisfying and necessary. The problem with snipers is a bit  downgraded compared to Call of Duty, snipers cannot sit and prey over players for an entire match, they need to move or they will be killed. This adds a little more balance to matches between teams, also sniping takes more skill due to taking the range of a shot in consideration.

The four classes provided in Battlefield are simple and tend to any players preferences. Each of the engineer, assault, medic and Recon classes do their job to equally help the team defeat the enemy. I love how it adds a sense of teamwork to matches so, not just one player carries a team to victory. Playing with two or 3 friends with headsets to coordinate your team actions will almost certainly give you and your team a great advantage against the opposing team. This sense of teamwork doesn’t seem to exist in the Call of Duty games.

With the release of the Battlefield 3 beta many people criticized it and many people were displeased with it. Some to the point where they said they were cancelling preorders and that the beta was actually bad marketing. I personally thought the beta was fantastic minus the bugs and glitches and the lack of vehicles, another realistic focus of the Battlefield series. The beta felt similar to Bad Company 2 but, more team oriented and dare I say twice as realistic. If people thought Bad Company 2′s realism and different approach to modern shooters was bad and didn’t hold up to Call of Duty: Black Ops they will most certainly dissatisfied Battlefield 3.


Semblance's picture

With the release of the Battlefield 3 beta many people criticized it and many people were displeased with it. Some to the point where they said they were cancelling preorders and that the beta was actually bad marketing.

If anything, Battlefield 3's beta is the result of a developer making a huge amount of horrible decisions. Rather than giving beta keys to MoH: Tier 1 buyers, people who bought the game for this beta almost a year ago, DICE decided that server hosters should get priority for the beta. Miscommunication on the date, preloading of the beta, and the keys themselves pretty much put the entire Battlefield community up in arms before a single bullet was even fired in the beta.

The choice of Operation: Metro itself was a horrendous choice. For a Battlefield "3" Beta, they chose a map that resembles the Bad Company series more than anything. More choke points than Jenna Jameson, close quarters combat that forces you to "hope" that no one is sitting in a corner, and the bad map design that punishes players for flanking and encourages players to play slow behind rocks and bushes all builds up to the piece of shit that OP: M is. I'll give DICE credit for opening up Caspian Border for the last weekend, but that doesn't make up god awful choice of Operation Metro.

This pretty much sums up Operation Metro:

jbrad6's picture

yes i agree doing op metro wasnt the best decision battlefields bread and butter has always been large scale warfare but the point of op metro i think was to show that they could be tactical similar to cod but with the battlefield flavor i wished i couldve had the vehicle map caspian border on my ps3 but the overall consensus among me and my friends (who are all former cod players) is that bf3 is far better improvement over cod i mean you can throw all the bells and whistles of new guns and tweaked equipment in cod but its still the same thing they gave us 5yrs ago with cod 4 


in bf3 everything is dynamic and smooth the running the climbing and jumping over things no button prompts to climb out a window it allows you to play without much worry over getting stuck bc of some stupid button prompt regardless of the bugs in the beta it still amazing compared to mw3 and they dont even beta test that for bugs no one remembers all the glitches black ops and mw2 had at launch and how much different black ops 1.00 version of multiplayer looks compared to the latest

Create New Account or Log in to comment